Help please - Complicated House Purchase - Recommendations

Yellowknifer

Hello.

We went sale agreed on a tiny house in Dublin a good few months ago now. As the house was very near a stream, we did what we thought was extensive due diligence by checking with the council and OPW re flood risk.

The council told us it was outside of area of low risk and we received home insurance on this basis. Both the council and OPW confirmed that the area was not up for flood review (we have emails from them stating this) we went ahead and signed contracts on this basis. Fast forward 4 weeks later and co-incidentally the very day that the vendors finally returned the contracts (they had been sitting on them for 2 weeks and closing date was then 5 days away) and the OPW randomly emails us saying that the house is actually in a low-risk flood zone and also that the area is due for update (i.e. it may be upgraded to a 'medium' risk zone or higher) in the next couple of months due to an 'extensive study' which has been going in the council for a long time. There is no reference to this study online and when I specifically asked both the council and OPW if the area was under review as I know that areas upstream were marked for review but the area of the house wasn't, the council said the area 'must have been reinserted into the map' and they did not know of any planned reviews. The OPW also had said that there were no reviews planned for the area. They are now saying otherwise.

Our solicitor (a friend) says that we have signed a binding contract and has strongly recommended continuing with it.

I just think this has to be wrong and surely, there has to be a way out in these situations.

Any recommendations for a lawyer who might be able to advise on this really appreciated. Time is very much of the essence. Thank you for the time to read this.

Peregrinus

You have a lawyer who is able to advise on this.

You're free, of course, to take your business to another lawyer, and you should do what you need to do for your own peace of mind. But I don't have a recommendation for you (and, even if I did, SFAIK practitioner recommendations are not allowed in this forum).

But a thought; it seems to me that you could be barking up the wrong tree. You have a concluded contract with the vendors, and you can't point to any misrepresentation, impropriety, etc on their part which would justify you in repudiating it. Your beef is with the Council and/or the Board of Works who may have been negligent in what they said to you. May be worth exploring whether you have a remedy against them for any loss to you which results, e.g., in the house being worth less than you have contracted for, on the basis of an elevated flood risk.

Yellowknifer

Thanks very much for the advise Peregrinus. I should have said our lawyer is fantastic and I do trust her, I am just really thrown by the supposed unfairness of this situation and find it hard to believe there is no recouse pathway.
Your thought is a good one and makes much more sense. Presumably the vendors were not aware of this development either (although perhaps they were and hence the reason for the sale?). I suppose they didn't have any obligation to disclose this information either way.
I wish we had a property system more similar to those in many North American jurisdictions. You have **** all protection here as a buyer and no-one (estate agents etc) to help out with what is such a stressful process.

Mr. Incognito

I'm sorry but you are buying a house next to a stream. Common sense would indicate it could swell when it rains. Did you not have an engineer check the house for evidence of flood damage?

I fail to see how this is anyone else's fault.

Also- did you check for rodents? Rats live near running water.

Glass fused light

The OPW have been working on flood risk mapping for a good few years, that you are buying and relied on a computer generated model rather than common sense is not the OPW nor the Councils responsibility. and I suspect that as your new information was not received under contract and the information you did receive was correct as at the time of delivery they will have not liability.

Their model will have maped the topographical impact but not necessarily the ongoing changes relative to the impact of building works etc
Eg there is a new small housing estate being built beside a small river in its flood basin. The local council granted permission on the basis of homes being built higher than the highest recorded flood. Which was done. They are currently land filling the gardens and so filling in the rest of the flood basin. Next time the river floods all the existing houses along the road, which is now the new flood basin, are in danger of flooding. IMO That wont be added in untill after the next flood event.

And that's not taking account of flash flooding which can happen just about anywhere along a stream/river flood plain.

The insurance companies have their own maps and own assments of flood risks based on claims so that wont have much impact unless they won't insure against flooding.

So you have little legal comeback against anyone for not completing the purchase. The better alternative may be to spend the money to employe a flood engineering company to secure the property against future flood damage.

Yellowknifer

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

I'm sorry but you are buying a house next to a stream. Common sense would indicate it could swell when it rains. Did you not have an engineer check the house for evidence of flood damage?

I fail to see how this is anyone else's fault.

Also- did you check for rodents? Rats live near running water.

Of course I understand that water rises and there is a risk. The question is, based on fairly extensive hydrological modelling, what is that risk? Is it 1% AEP? 0.1% AEP? etc. On that basis, one can make an informed decision, which we did. The information we were given was completely false based on available data at that time. I would expect, if I ask a question from a government body, to be given a truthful answer based on best available information that time. I was not given this.

Rodents don't bother me.

Yellowknifer

Glass fused light wrote: »

The OPW have been working on flood risk mapping for a good few years, that you are buying and relied on a computer generated model rather than common sense is not the OPW nor the Councils responsibility. and I suspect that as your new information was not received under contract and the information you did receive was correct as at the time of delivery they will have not liability.

The information they gave was not correct according to their own records at the time that they gave it. That is the basis of my entire grievance.

Yellowknifer

Glass fused light wrote: »

Their model will have maped the topographical impact but not necessarily the ongoing changes relative to the impact of building works etc
Eg there is a new small housing estate being built beside a small river in its flood basin. The local council granted permission on the basis of homes being built higher than the highest recorded flood. Which was done. They are currently land filling the gardens and so filling in the rest of the flood basin. Next time the river floods all the existing houses along the road, which is now the new flood basin, are in danger of flooding. IMO That wont be added in untill after the next flood event.

Does the council not have a responsibility when making planning decisions to consider the impact of a new development on existing developments?


[/QUOTE]The insurance companies have their own maps and own assments of flood risks based on claims so that wont have much impact unless they won't insure against flooding.[/QUOTE]

This is not our experience. They apply a blanket ban based on proximity to a water body. Beyond that, the only piece of evidence that the insurance companies we contacted (many) would accept was a letter from the council in relation to the flood maps.

Glass fused light

Yellowknifer wrote: »

Of course I understand that water rises and there is a risk. The question is, based on fairly extensive hydrological modelling, what is that risk? Is it 1% AEP? 0.1% AEP? etc. On that basis, one can make an informed decision, which we did. The information we were given was completely false based on available data at that time. I would expect, if I ask a question from a government body, to be given a truthful answer based on best available information that time. I was not given this.

Rodents don't bother me.

Unless the employee handling your request went and made up a random answer, you got a truthful answer based on the available data at the time.
The employee became aware of further data and emailed again to update you.

Which given your reaction will likely result in a proceedure change on not being helpful and providing unrequested updates.

So can you provide any reason why you believe that the information was not truthful?

Glass fused light

Yellowknifer wrote: »

The information they gave was not correct according to their own records at the time that they gave it. That is the basis of my entire grievance.

What was incorrect at the first contact point and then at the second?

Glass fused light

Yellowknifer wrote: »

Does the council not have a responsibility when making planning decisions to consider the impact of a new development on existing developments?

Only to a small degree when it comes to flooding.

One of the reasons that the flood mapping of the whole of Ireland is taking place is to allow the councils access to historical records of flood plains and to track the expectd changes that climate changes brings, and guess what is the best way to develop into the future.

If you want to build in the middle of a flood plain and have a proper design to stop the building flooding and dispose of the water into the public system or an existing water cource the council are not going to run a flood model on the plans.
They may request it as part of an enviromental impact study. But for the most part don't have the software systems or historical data to do this. And some of the water / rivers are coming in from another county anyways

Each building and grounds will create a small flood as the water is pushed into drains So at historical volumes the builder can size pipes for water disposal into the local river. If the river banks have been raised by 1 meter each side the water is going to flow to the next available low point. Or if the downpour is twice what was expected half will escape via the drain and the other half will follow the low points off the site or pool in the lowest point on the site.

So for example,that is why Dublin CC want to stop people putting in impermeable cars paces in front and back gardens as this runoff has to go into the drain rather than down into the water table.

Mr. Incognito

The house is built so its not a planning decision. The planning for the house is freely avilable online at the local planning office.

Your first port of call would have been a map. To see what feeds that stream .

I really am sick of people blaming other people for their own lack of basic adult life skills.

Victor

Yellowknifer wrote: »

This is not our experience. They apply a blanket ban based on proximity to a water body. Beyond that, the only piece of evidence that the insurance companies we contacted (many) would accept was a letter from the council in relation to the flood maps.

Contact a few insurers with the Eircode of the property an ask for quotes.

Spend some money on preventative measures.

Or back out of the contract - this may cost a lot.

Yellowknifer

Victor wrote: »

Contact a few insurers with the Eircode of the property an ask for quotes.

Spend some money on preventative measures.

Or back out of the contract - this may cost a lot.

Thanks for suggestions Victor. We have contacted multiple brokers and companies directly.

Backing out of the contract would also cost a lot unfortunately. It's a bit of a catch 22 situation.

Yellowknifer

Glass fused light wrote: »

Unless the employee handling your request went and made up a random answer, you got a truthful answer based on the available data at the time.
The employee became aware of further data and emailed again to update you.

Which given your reaction will likely result in a proceedure change on not being helpful and providing unrequested updates.

So can you provide any reason why you believe that the information was not truthful?

My apologies. I perhaps was not careful with language. I should have used 'accurate/not accurate' rather than true/false. Do I think that the employees purposefully lied? No I don't. Do I expect accuracy from a public body? Yes I do.

One can be helpful without being misleading. A change in language, or communication with colleagues is all that is required.

Glass fused light

Yellowknifer wrote: »

My apologies. I perhaps was not careful with language. I should have used 'accurate/not accurate' rather than true/false. Do I think that the employees purposefully lied? No I don't. Do I expect accuracy from a public body? Yes I do.

One can be helpful without being misleading. A change in language, or communication with colleagues is all that is required.

The area plan for Dublin CC is fixed until 2022. If its like most residential areas in Dublin the volume of houses for sale will be linked to the age of the estate and if there are no planed civic works along the water course part of updating the mapping would be in sequential blocks and given low priority to change the running order.

So something has changed to move it up the to do list.

The likely thing is that your inquiry and similar ones triggered a chain of events that resulted in the change. But it may be worth your while to read the back issues of the local papers and to take a day off to walk up stream plus head into the planning office section and read up on pre-planning applications

Victor

Glass fused light wrote: »

The area plan for Dublin CC is fixed until 2022.

Plans can be amended.

Glass fused light

Victor wrote: »

Plans can be amended.

Yep thats what the OP needs to be investigating


Im a glass half full but leaking fast on this. Rather than assuming that they were mislead the second email should be a heads up to find out why their downsteam area is now at low risk of flooding and may move up the risk scale. It's of little benefit at the OP is locked into a contract so I hope they wont end up reading this in full panic mode but understanding why the change is proposed is the important bit

jonb84

Hi. You can get your own flood risk assessment done. Flood maps don't tend to look at any specific property in detail and are generally based on LiDAR information. So they wont pick up specific finished floor levels. So while you might be in a Red Zone the actual risk to the property maybe less.
um/
/mod deletion - advertising not allowed on this forum/